Post by: dilleytech on April 13, 2024, 10:03:26 AM
I don’t understand why they didn’t make it apply to all hunting weapon choices. Holding a bow doesn’t make you more safe from getting shot then if your holding a rifle..
Post by: Loup Loup on April 13, 2024, 10:13:53 AM
Post by: bobcat on April 13, 2024, 10:25:12 AM
Post by: dilleytech on April 13, 2024, 10:32:14 AM
I don't think it has anything to do with safety. A couple of those commissioners would probably actually prefer a hunter to get shot instead of a bear. It's simply something they did because they don't like people hunting bears. Just a little thing to make our lives harder. Totally unnecessary. Kind of like the new requirement to turn in a certain tooth on any bobcat harvested.
I’m sure you’re 100% correct on that. Whatever way they can to try to reduce bear harvest. They aren’t smart enough to know it doesn’t make sense. They probably think safety orange is used to make hunting harder not safer.
Post by: Loup Loup on April 13, 2024, 10:46:00 AM
Free harvest to send in a tooth. ( or December 31 which I don’t get).
I didn’t research it but, I think it was 10 days last year. ( course I could be mixing it up with ID regs)If the reporting period is shortened by half, another way to write tickets.
Also next season I will send in any teeth return receipt. Cost money but, cya.
Post by: dilleytech on April 13, 2024, 11:01:43 AM
I also noted you have 5 days a
Free harvest to send in a tooth. ( or December 31 which I don’t get).
I didn’t research it but, I think it was 10 days last year. ( course I could be mixing it up with ID regs)If the reporting period is shortened by half, another way to write tickets.
Also next season I will send in any teeth return receipt. Cost money but, cya.
Most people don’t send in teeth and I haven’t heard of it being enforced. Yet.. these kind of things just discourage reporting bear harvest in general.
Post by: 85yota on April 13, 2024, 11:29:38 AM
Post by: bobcat on April 13, 2024, 11:32:45 AM
Post by: elkslayer069 on April 13, 2024, 12:22:29 PM
Post by: dilleytech on April 13, 2024, 12:31:01 PM
Hard to prove your bear hunting. Wheres the line drawn just because I have a rifle in my truck or a rifle in a scabbard on a mule during bear season I’m bear hunting ?
If you’re walking around with a rifle and a bear tag in your pocket. You’re bear hunting. Same goes if your sitting in a stand over a pile of bait with a bear tag in your pocket.
Post by: bobcat on April 13, 2024, 12:40:43 PM
Hard to prove your bear hunting. Wheres the line drawn just because I have a rifle in my truck or a rifle in a scabbard on a mule during bear season I’m bear hunting ?
If you’re walking around with a rifle and a bear tag in your pocket. You’re bear hunting. Same goes if your sitting in a stand over a pile of bait with a bear tag in your pocket.
Not really. My tags are with me 100% of the time, because they stay in my wallet year around. I'm only bear hunting if I tell the game warden I'm bear hunting, or if I shoot a bear.
Post by: Loup Loup on April 13, 2024, 12:50:10 PM
Post by: dilleytech on April 13, 2024, 12:58:29 PM
Hard to prove your bear hunting. Wheres the line drawn just because I have a rifle in my truck or a rifle in a scabbard on a mule during bear season I’m bear hunting ?
If you’re walking around with a rifle and a bear tag in your pocket. You’re bear hunting. Same goes if your sitting in a stand over a pile of bait with a bear tag in your pocket.
Not really. My tags are with me 100% of the time, because they stay in my wallet year around. I'm only bear hunting if I tell the game warden I'm bear hunting, or if I shoot a bear.
You can have that opinion. But the game warden can disagree with you.
Post by: HillHound on April 13, 2024, 01:09:29 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 13, 2024, 01:16:19 PM
Post by: Loup Loup on April 13, 2024, 01:21:13 PM
We are not hunting bear unless we say we are hunting bear. If we had a dead bear we have reduced to our possession, it would be illegal to be hunting bear at that time, until we bought another tag. So again, if we had been hunting bear that ended when we reduced that bear to our possession. Wear your orange as you see fit.
Post by: Timberstalker on April 13, 2024, 01:21:56 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 13, 2024, 01:24:32 PM
This means one would have to wear orange/pink while cougar hunting as well.
Well yes, it's also now required for cougar hunting.
Post by: Bob33 on April 13, 2024, 02:34:24 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 13, 2024, 02:49:15 PM
Post by: CarbonHunter on April 13, 2024, 04:36:23 PM
Post by: fishngamereaper on April 13, 2024, 05:01:20 PM
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the last person shot on Washington by a bear hunter was a hiker wearing blue. How does making the one holding the rifle wear orange improve the safety of the hikers wearing blue, or worse the ones wear black?
It doesn't
As long as hikers, brush pickers etc are still wandering around without high viz requirements...
Stupid still exists and you can't "new" rule the negligence out of some people..
Post by: Loup Loup on April 13, 2024, 05:36:53 PM
Mandatory hunter colors is so game wardens can sit in their trucks on an over look and spot any hunters in the area, and they hope write tickets for non compliance. For something enforcement doesn’t comply with.
Post by: Itsintheblood on April 13, 2024, 05:46:07 PM
Post by: jrebel on April 13, 2024, 06:15:10 PM
Just curious why so many are opposed to wearing orange while rifle hunting?
Post by: Ridgeratt on April 13, 2024, 06:24:25 PM
Post by: fishngamereaper on April 13, 2024, 06:31:30 PM
I'm ambiguous......Wearing orange is easy and if it keeps you visible / safe and within that law / rules.....who cares.
Just curious why so many are opposed to wearing orange while rifle hunting?
Shouldn't it be a personal choice though..
Funny thing about these rules is only the person carrying the gun needs orange. How does that make sense... honestly from a safety standpoint...
I don't like orange because I prefer not to be seen. I hunt discreetly. That's why I enjoy bow hunting..
When I do rifle hunt I'll wear it because it's required..but I don't feel it lessens my chances of some idiot shooting me...back stop and beyond violations worry me more than being targeted or mistaken for something..
Post by: Bullkllr on April 13, 2024, 06:36:35 PM
I'm ambiguous......Wearing orange is easy and if it keeps you visible / safe and within that law / rules.....who cares.
Just curious why so many are opposed to wearing orange while rifle hunting?
I also find it interesting that the only person required to wear it is the person holding the gun. I really don't have any issue when basically every person in the field is hunting with a modern firearm, but that hardly seems the case during much of the bear and cougar seasons.
Post by: dilleytech on April 13, 2024, 07:05:22 PM
I'm ambiguous......Wearing orange is easy and if it keeps you visible / safe and within that law / rules.....who cares.
Just curious why so many are opposed to wearing orange while rifle hunting?
Personally I don’t want people to be able to see me when I’m the woods, I don’t think orange makes you less affective while hunting. Bears seem almost blind as far as I can tell anyway. But what bothers me most about this new rule is the stupidity of it. So if I’m holding a rifle while bear hunting I’m at danger and should wear orange. But if I’m holding a bow or muzzleloader I’m perfectly safe and don't need to be worried about my safety because no one would accidentally shoot someone holding a bow.
If we people want to walk around hunting in a pink dress go for it. But we don’t need more of these nonsense rules.
Post by: CarbonHunter on April 13, 2024, 07:25:22 PM
Post by: addicted1 on April 13, 2024, 09:58:42 PM
Post by: snit on April 14, 2024, 08:05:49 AM
As mentioned multiple times above and I've said it before here too; I feel that the ulterior motive of the mandatory "hunter orange" requirement is to allow LE an "easier" way to identify hunters in the field. It's essentially profiling, hidden behind the red-herring of "public/hunter safety".
Post by: trophyhunt on April 14, 2024, 08:09:14 AM
I detest the color of ORANGE. I don't purchase any items in ORANGE, except the stoopid vest I'm forced to wear during modern rifle to keep myself "safe".:yeah: exactly.
As mentioned multiple times above and I've said it before here too; I feel that the ulterior motive of the mandatory "hunter orange" requirement is to allow LE an "easier" way to identify hunters in the field. It's essentially profiling, hidden behind the red-herring of "public/hunter safety".
Post by: jrebel on April 14, 2024, 08:52:06 AM
I want other hunters to see me with the naked eye and not scope me when they see movement. Here is a great article and history of hunters / blaze orange. This came about many decades ago.....I just can't believe it is a profiling mechanism with this long standing history. I would agree with what some had said....why just the "hunter", or person holding a rifle? Why not others that are accompanying the hunter?? Why not WDFW employees when in the field during rifle seasons?? I think it would be hard to force others, not in the act of hunting, to wear it.....but it could be highly recommended. That said...why give non hunters a reason to complain about hunters when we start telling them what to wear??
Regardless.....very interesting topic and appreciate everyone's perspectives.
Here is the article I found informative.
https://www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/hunter-orange
Post by: Huckleberry on April 14, 2024, 09:17:28 AM
Post by: buckfvr on April 14, 2024, 09:50:36 AM
I detest the color of ORANGE. I don't purchase any items in ORANGE, except the stoopid vest I'm forced to wear during modern rifle to keep myself "safe".:yeah: exactly.
As mentioned multiple times above and I've said it before here too; I feel that the ulterior motive of the mandatory "hunter orange" requirement is to allow LE an "easier" way to identify hunters in the field. It's essentially profiling, hidden behind the red-herring of "public/hunter safety".
:yeah: Plus I am in agreement, we wear it, wdfw staff wears it no exception.
Post by: hughjorgan on April 14, 2024, 09:58:17 AM
I understand what folks are saying.....don't 100% agree.....but understand. I did a quick google search and it shows 40 states currently require hunters orange for hunting. I didn't look deep enough to see for what specific season...most likely rifle seasons. So are all the other 39 states motives to profile hunters or is the motive truly safety.....regardless of whether or not you believe it makes you more safe?
I want other hunters to see me with the naked eye and not scope me when they see movement. Here is a great article and history of hunters / blaze orange. This came about many decades ago.....I just can't believe it is a profiling mechanism with this long standing history. I would agree with what some had said....why just the "hunter", or person holding a rifle? Why not others that are accompanying the hunter?? Why not WDFW employees when in the field during rifle seasons?? I think it would be hard to force others, not in the act of hunting, to wear it.....but it could be highly recommended. That said...why give non hunters a reason to complain about hunters when we start telling them what to wear??
Regardless.....very interesting topic and appreciate everyone's perspectives.
Here is the article I found informative.
https://www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/hunter-orange
Okay so if you want people to be able to see you with the naked eye, when bear season has been in season in the past were you wearing hunter orange so others could see you? I bet I know the answer.
There are 20k bear hunters on average every year in Washington with a season that is months long. This new regulation has nothing to do with making anyone safer. There is no crowding in the bear woods like you’ll see when deer and elk hunters are crammed into a small window of opportunity to hunt those species.
Post by: Nate Ortloff on April 14, 2024, 10:37:41 AM
Post by: Loup Loup on April 14, 2024, 11:07:38 AM
Post by: jrebel on April 14, 2024, 11:36:30 AM
I understand what folks are saying.....don't 100% agree.....but understand. I did a quick google search and it shows 40 states currently require hunters orange for hunting. I didn't look deep enough to see for what specific season...most likely rifle seasons. So are all the other 39 states motives to profile hunters or is the motive truly safety.....regardless of whether or not you believe it makes you more safe?
I want other hunters to see me with the naked eye and not scope me when they see movement. Here is a great article and history of hunters / blaze orange. This came about many decades ago.....I just can't believe it is a profiling mechanism with this long standing history. I would agree with what some had said....why just the "hunter", or person holding a rifle? Why not others that are accompanying the hunter?? Why not WDFW employees when in the field during rifle seasons?? I think it would be hard to force others, not in the act of hunting, to wear it.....but it could be highly recommended. That said...why give non hunters a reason to complain about hunters when we start telling them what to wear??
Regardless.....very interesting topic and appreciate everyone's perspectives.
Here is the article I found informative.
https://www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/hunter-orange
Okay so if you want people to be able to see you with the naked eye, when bear season has been in season in the past were you wearing hunter orange so others could see you? I bet I know the answer.
There are 20k bear hunters on average every year in Washington with a season that is months long. This new regulation has nothing to do with making anyone safer. There is no crowding in the bear woods like you’ll see when deer and elk hunters are crammed into a small window of opportunity to hunt those species.
To answer your question....not all the time. Let me explain. With the exception of maybe 6 bears, all my bears have been killed on private property or in Canada. When on private property (large parcels), I know who and where the other hunters are. Usually there are only a couple people hunting the property and we sit in pre designated areas (depending on feed / time of year and wind), we aren't out beating the brush so to speak. When on public ground hunting bears, we are usually hunting other animals, so "YES" am wearing my hunters orange. One spring hunt (my first) I had a guided bear hunt in the NE corner. I didn't wear hunters orange for that trip, though I had it in my backpack. We primarily road hunted, stopping to glass large hillsides and cuts....never get more than 100 feet from the truck. It was a great hunt, and I learned a ton about spring bear hunts (cover ground and use your glass). If I was hiking ridges I would have felt more comfortable in orange. I've heard the whistle of bullets go off over my head and it is very unnerving to say the least.
I also wear hunters orange when hunting with my son, even though I am not the hunter.
At the end of the day.....I guess it is to each their own. Am I excited to wear hunters orange when hunting private property....NO. Is it a deal breaker....NO. I guess I'm just not as emotionally vested in this fight. Just curious why so many are willing to dig there heals in when (to me), it just doesn't seam like that big an issue.
It's kind of like all the celebrities that say if "Trump gets elected, I'm moving to a different Country." Never happened.... If I have to wear hunters orange, It's all the more reason to not hunt in this state, Bet that doesn't happen either.
As for your example, with numbers of hunters during bear season.....I get it and hear you loud and clear!! I may refute that argument by giving an exaple....as poor as it may be....Most kids that run with scissors don't fall and impale themselves, but we still tell them to not run with scissors. Point being, even though it would be exceeding rare for a kid to fall on scissors, the outcome of such event can be catastrophic. Same if you are not seen and you get shot by a careless hunter. Yeah, the careless hunter should have had better judgement......doesn't change the fact you may be severly wounded or dead.
Post by: dilleytech on April 14, 2024, 12:39:02 PM
I understand what folks are saying.....don't 100% agree.....but understand. I did a quick google search and it shows 40 states currently require hunters orange for hunting. I didn't look deep enough to see for what specific season...most likely rifle seasons. So are all the other 39 states motives to profile hunters or is the motive truly safety.....regardless of whether or not you believe it makes you more safe?
I want other hunters to see me with the naked eye and not scope me when they see movement. Here is a great article and history of hunters / blaze orange. This came about many decades ago.....I just can't believe it is a profiling mechanism with this long standing history. I would agree with what some had said....why just the "hunter", or person holding a rifle? Why not others that are accompanying the hunter?? Why not WDFW employees when in the field during rifle seasons?? I think it would be hard to force others, not in the act of hunting, to wear it.....but it could be highly recommended. That said...why give non hunters a reason to complain about hunters when we start telling them what to wear??
Regardless.....very interesting topic and appreciate everyone's perspectives.
Here is the article I found informative.
https://www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/hunter-orange
Okay so if you want people to be able to see you with the naked eye, when bear season has been in season in the past were you wearing hunter orange so others could see you? I bet I know the answer.
There are 20k bear hunters on average every year in Washington with a season that is months long. This new regulation has nothing to do with making anyone safer. There is no crowding in the bear woods like you’ll see when deer and elk hunters are crammed into a small window of opportunity to hunt those species.
To answer your question....not all the time. Let me explain. With the exception of maybe 6 bears, all my bears have been killed on private property or in Canada. When on private property (large parcels), I know who and where the other hunters are. Usually there are only a couple people hunting the property and we sit in pre designated areas (depending on feed / time of year and wind), we aren't out beating the brush so to speak. When on public ground hunting bears, we are usually hunting other animals, so "YES" am wearing my hunters orange. One spring hunt (my first) I had a guided bear hunt in the NE corner. I didn't wear hunters orange for that trip, though I had it in my backpack. We primarily road hunted, stopping to glass large hillsides and cuts....never get more than 100 feet from the truck. It was a great hunt, and I learned a ton about spring bear hunts (cover ground and use your glass). If I was hiking ridges I would have felt more comfortable in orange. I've heard the whistle of bullets go off over my head and it is very unnerving to say the least.
I also wear hunters orange when hunting with my son, even though I am not the hunter.
At the end of the day.....I guess it is to each their own. Am I excited to wear hunters orange when hunting private property....NO. Is it a deal breaker....NO. I guess I'm just not as emotionally vested in this fight. Just curious why so many are willing to dig there heals in when (to me), it just doesn't seam like that big an issue.
It's kind of like all the celebrities that say if "Trump gets elected, I'm moving to a different Country." Never happened.... If I have to wear hunters orange, It's all the more reason to not hunt in this state, Bet that doesn't happen either.
As for your example, with numbers of hunters during bear season.....I get it and hear you loud and clear!! I may refute that argument by giving an exaple....as poor as it may be....Most kids that run with scissors don't fall and impale themselves, but we still tell them to not run with scissors. Point being, even though it would be exceeding rare for a kid to fall on scissors, the outcome of such event can be catastrophic. Same if you are not seen and you get shot by a careless hunter. Yeah, the careless hunter should have had better judgement......doesn't change the fact you may be severly wounded or dead.
Freedoms should never be removed at the chance of an increase of safety. Personal responsibility is important. I except that walking alone in the woods is a risk to My safety. There’s a lot more realistic ways I could die in the woods then getting shot. But that’s my personal choice. Just like what color my clothing is should be my personal choice.
Post by: hughjorgan on April 14, 2024, 12:40:24 PM
Maybe if we didn’t have such a crappy commission to contend with people wouldn’t be making the assumptions they are but we do have an anti predator/anti hunting commission that makes this dumb WAC highly suspicious. What problem did it address?
Post by: knob221 on April 14, 2024, 01:17:22 PM
I like to be discrete when I'm hunting. I backpack hunt in places where I can get away. I like being discrete and blending in. If I'm 50 yards off trail and someone is passing by, I'm likely to duck low and just let them pass without them ever knowing I was there. I just like it that way. I like being discrete.
If I never get closer than 500 yards from some hiker and they see me up on a hill off trail they might think, what is that guy doing up there? Now they will know exactly what I'm doing, hunting. So what you might ask? How about that hiker goes and leaves a trip report for that trail on WTA and says, saw a hunter hiking off trail towards (names your hunting spot). Or what if they tell their friend or coworker who hunts? Or what if its a deer hunter who is just out hiking. Next year they decide to hunt bears for the first time ever. Where might they start? The list of what ifs is endless. The point is, I don't want to give away my location or my motives to other people if I don't have to.
My second gripe is simply the annoyance of wearing an orange vest. Bear hunting weather can be hot as hell! One more layer, even if its thin and a vest, makes a difference. Its. Dealing with layers and having to always make sure my vest goes on top is obnoxious. more weight in my pack. Its something I could forget while packing. It is an annoyance.
Is this a huge deal? No, but it is an inconvenience and it isn't necessary where and how I hunt.
Post by: builtfordtough on April 14, 2024, 01:22:18 PM
Post by: BreezyBear on April 14, 2024, 04:20:35 PM
Post by: chukardogs on April 14, 2024, 04:42:10 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on April 14, 2024, 05:03:52 PM
Just an opinion; if it's really all about safety and hunters have to wear hunter orange or pink then why wouldn't anyone out n about in the hills during an open season where firearms are being used be required to wear orange or pink? Hikers in Washington have to have a discover pass to park at most trailheads. There's plenty of opportunities to get the info to them. They could be instructed that on or after such and such a day, you must wear x amount of square inches of these colors. Mailers could be sent, the evening news could cover it, signs could be hung at all trailheads and REI stores. If you don't wear it, you'll be ticketed. Period, Simple! Otherwise, doesn't it seem as though the state is indicating that hunters lives are more important than hikers, mushroomers or berry pickers. Making the argument that it would be difficult to require others to wear bright colors during a certain time period, doesn't say much for the others or the state. Probably wouldn't take many tickets before all the hiking clubs and groups would get the message. If they get all worked up, so be it. Hunters pay a hundred bucks or more for license and tags. Hikers pay 30 or 40 for their discover pass. If it's too much to ask of people to take some precautions that the state says makes everyone safer, then how about anyone not hunting stay out of the hills?
Require that and there won’t be any hunting. If you think you can inconvenience 90% of the folks recreating and still have a hunting season you haven’t been in this state very long.
I don’t care for the rule, but that’s the law now , and I would bet there is no going back ever.
Post by: chukardogs on April 14, 2024, 05:24:20 PM
Post by: Alan K on April 14, 2024, 05:39:49 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on April 14, 2024, 05:45:27 PM
I'm sorry, I obviously need to work on my sarcasm. I thought hunters lives being more important than hikers lives would have gave it away. I know that whatever the law is, the states not changing it. I do find it odd that hunters have to wear the bright colors and we're the ones with the guns.
As I said before I don’t like it.
But if you look at hunting accidents, you are most likely to shoot yourself or someone in your hunting party or of coarse be shot by someone in your party.
Shootings involving unknown parties while hunting are a low percentage.
In the end we are the ones with the guns.
:twocents:
Post by: Bucks2Ducks on April 14, 2024, 06:59:54 PM
Shootings that are going to be prevented during bear season by wearing hunter orange are zero. I'd actually say it does give people a false sense of security and could result in more accidents.I'm sorry, I obviously need to work on my sarcasm. I thought hunters lives being more important than hikers lives would have gave it away. I know that whatever the law is, the states not changing it. I do find it odd that hunters have to wear the bright colors and we're the ones with the guns.
As I said before I don’t like it.
But if you look at hunting accidents, you are most likely to shoot yourself or someone in your hunting party or of coarse be shot by someone in your party.
Shootings involving unknown parties while hunting are a low percentage.
In the end we are the ones with the guns.
:twocents:
For example everyone in your group is wearing hunter orange, and no one saw the hiker come in to pick berries in a black rain coat
Post by: chukardogs on April 14, 2024, 07:20:30 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on April 14, 2024, 07:26:49 PM
Shootings that are going to be prevented during bear season by wearing hunter orange are zero. I'd actually say it does give people a false sense of security and could result in more accidents.I'm sorry, I obviously need to work on my sarcasm. I thought hunters lives being more important than hikers lives would have gave it away. I know that whatever the law is, the states not changing it. I do find it odd that hunters have to wear the bright colors and we're the ones with the guns.
As I said before I don’t like it.
But if you look at hunting accidents, you are most likely to shoot yourself or someone in your hunting party or of coarse be shot by someone in your party.
Shootings involving unknown parties while hunting are a low percentage.
In the end we are the ones with the guns.
:twocents:
For example everyone in your group is wearing hunter orange, and no one saw the hiker come in to pick berries in a black rain coat
The data doesn’t support that conclusion. Someone can always get shot, if you do not identify your target. It’s easy to say it won’t make a difference but in reality there is decades of accidents history which indicate bright colors are useful in preventing accidents.
Hunters are most likely the shooter and the victim. Not some random person.
Post by: bigtex on April 14, 2024, 07:29:13 PM
Just an opinion; if it's really all about safety and hunters have to wear hunter orange or pink then why wouldn't anyone out n about in the hills during an open season where firearms are being used be required to wear orange or pink?The main reason there isn't such a regulation (hikers being required to wear orange) is that WDFW lacks the jurisdiction over hikers, the only exception would be WDFW could say anyone hiking on WDFW lands is required to wear orange. The DNR would have to adopt a similar reg for their lands, Forest Service for their lands, etc. The only way around this would be for the state legislature to actually adopt a law requiring the wearing of orange during hunting seasons, and that just isn't going to happen.
Post by: ghosthunter on April 14, 2024, 07:31:57 PM
I'm pretty sure I remember a berry picker in Montana a few years back wearing a black jacket was shot by a couple bear hunters. If he'd been wearing a bright pink coat, maybe he's still pickin berries.
Yes and a cone picker here, and let’s not forget Pamela A. shot on Sauk Mountain by a teenage Bear hunter who mistakenly thought she was a bear. She was wearing a blue and black jacket.
People get shot by hunters but far more hunters are shot by hunters.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2008/aug/05/14-year-old-bear-hunter-shoots-kills-hiker/
Post by: ghosthunter on April 14, 2024, 07:33:14 PM
Just an opinion; if it's really all about safety and hunters have to wear hunter orange or pink then why wouldn't anyone out n about in the hills during an open season where firearms are being used be required to wear orange or pink?The main reason there isn't such a regulation (hikers being required to wear orange) is that WDFW lacks the jurisdiction over hikers, the only exception would be WDFW could say anyone hiking on WDFW lands is required to wear orange. The DNR would have to adopt a similar reg for their lands, Forest Service for their lands, etc. The only way around this would be for the state legislature to actually adopt a law requiring the wearing of orange during hunting seasons, and that just isn't going to happen.
And any rule would be ruled unconstitutional.
Post by: bigtex on April 14, 2024, 07:51:15 PM
And where in the constitution would the rule run afoul?And any rule would be ruled unconstitutional.Just an opinion; if it's really all about safety and hunters have to wear hunter orange or pink then why wouldn't anyone out n about in the hills during an open season where firearms are being used be required to wear orange or pink?The main reason there isn't such a regulation (hikers being required to wear orange) is that WDFW lacks the jurisdiction over hikers, the only exception would be WDFW could say anyone hiking on WDFW lands is required to wear orange. The DNR would have to adopt a similar reg for their lands, Forest Service for their lands, etc. The only way around this would be for the state legislature to actually adopt a law requiring the wearing of orange during hunting seasons, and that just isn't going to happen.
There are more than a dozen states that require those non-hunting companions of hunters to wear hunter orange. There are some states that require anyone using state wildlife area lands to wear hunter orange during hunting seasons. Just last month the Utah legislature passed a law granting authority to the Utah game department to enact rules to require the wearing of hunter orange by non-hunters such as hikers on state wildlife areas.
Post by: trophyhunt on April 14, 2024, 08:20:26 PM
Post by: chukardogs on April 14, 2024, 08:36:00 PM
Post by: Itsintheblood on April 14, 2024, 08:37:57 PM
Looking up the WAC on the state webpage it still clearly states (exception 2) except bear or cougar. Until it changes there, I’m not going to follow a rule out of a pamphlet that is not completely stated.Alright someone has to help me out here because I clearly don’t understand. My comment was skipped right over. It clearly states under WAC 220-414-080 that this rule excludes bear and cougar hunters. Now just because the game department decided to put part of the code but not all of the code on the bear page of the pamphlet doesn’t mean that only what they state is correct. Was this a new adopted change that hasn’t been updated in the current WAC? I completely agree that seasons, limits and so on are justified by the big game regulations. However, a statement with a WAC number quoted means they are saying based on that code you are required to do so. Not what only the pamphlet states. Please get me inform me what I am missing.
Post by: Itsintheblood on April 14, 2024, 08:40:05 PM
Post by: jrebel on April 14, 2024, 08:53:01 PM
Looking up the WAC on the state webpage it still clearly states (exception 2) except bear or cougar. Until it changes there, I’m not going to follow a rule out of a pamphlet that is not completely stated.Alright someone has to help me out here because I clearly don’t understand. My comment was skipped right over. It clearly states under WAC 220-414-080 that this rule excludes bear and cougar hunters. Now just because the game department decided to put part of the code but not all of the code on the bear page of the pamphlet doesn’t mean that only what they state is correct. Was this a new adopted change that hasn’t been updated in the current WAC? I completely agree that seasons, limits and so on are justified by the big game regulations. However, a statement with a WAC number quoted means they are saying based on that code you are required to do so. Not what only the pamphlet states. Please get me inform me what I am missing.
@bigtex What is your take on this. I would think the WAC would supercede WDFW pamphlet states.
Post by: ghosthunter on April 14, 2024, 09:04:14 PM
Oh please! Unconstitutional? Really? Where in the constitution does it say anything about only wearing subdued colors? Your honor, my rights have been violated because I had to wear orange after Labor day. If it's really unconstitutional to require 400 sq. inches of bright colored clothing during hunting season, why hasn't someone challenged it? If the washington state fish and game actually cared and believed that wearing bright colors saved lives, they'd convince any state agency to require bright colored clothing after a certain date. For that matter, if it was really all that important, the governor could mandate all agencies that control land use, to make it mandatory that all state employees, all visitors, all hunters will wear bright colors when in the field.
I am not saying hunters could claim that.
I am saying non hunting public could possibly claim it violated their civil rights.
Post by: bigtex on April 14, 2024, 09:07:08 PM
And what actual civil right would be violated?Oh please! Unconstitutional? Really? Where in the constitution does it say anything about only wearing subdued colors? Your honor, my rights have been violated because I had to wear orange after Labor day. If it's really unconstitutional to require 400 sq. inches of bright colored clothing during hunting season, why hasn't someone challenged it? If the washington state fish and game actually cared and believed that wearing bright colors saved lives, they'd convince any state agency to require bright colored clothing after a certain date. For that matter, if it was really all that important, the governor could mandate all agencies that control land use, to make it mandatory that all state employees, all visitors, all hunters will wear bright colors when in the field.I am not saying hunters could claim that.
I am saying non hunting public could possibly claim it violated their civil rights.
Post by: trophyhunt on April 14, 2024, 09:07:13 PM
so could the hunting public.Oh please! Unconstitutional? Really? Where in the constitution does it say anything about only wearing subdued colors? Your honor, my rights have been violated because I had to wear orange after Labor day. If it's really unconstitutional to require 400 sq. inches of bright colored clothing during hunting season, why hasn't someone challenged it? If the washington state fish and game actually cared and believed that wearing bright colors saved lives, they'd convince any state agency to require bright colored clothing after a certain date. For that matter, if it was really all that important, the governor could mandate all agencies that control land use, to make it mandatory that all state employees, all visitors, all hunters will wear bright colors when in the field.
I am not saying hunters could claim that.
I am saying non hunting public could possibly claim it violated their civil rights.
Post by: Bob33 on April 14, 2024, 09:07:28 PM
WACs for many of the changes in the pamphlet haven't been updated yet: seasons, 1x scopes, hunter orange, etc. I suspect it is a matter of timing and they wanted the regulations out as soon as possible.Looking up the WAC on the state webpage it still clearly states (exception 2) except bear or cougar. Until it changes there, I’m not going to follow a rule out of a pamphlet that is not completely stated.Alright someone has to help me out here because I clearly don’t understand. My comment was skipped right over. It clearly states under WAC 220-414-080 that this rule excludes bear and cougar hunters. Now just because the game department decided to put part of the code but not all of the code on the bear page of the pamphlet doesn’t mean that only what they state is correct. Was this a new adopted change that hasn’t been updated in the current WAC? I completely agree that seasons, limits and so on are justified by the big game regulations. However, a statement with a WAC number quoted means they are saying based on that code you are required to do so. Not what only the pamphlet states. Please get me inform me what I am missing.
@bigtex What is your take on this. I would think the WAC would supercede WDFW pamphlet states.
Post by: trophyhunt on April 14, 2024, 09:08:44 PM
being told what to wear seems a bit tyrannical?And what actual civil right would be violated?Oh please! Unconstitutional? Really? Where in the constitution does it say anything about only wearing subdued colors? Your honor, my rights have been violated because I had to wear orange after Labor day. If it's really unconstitutional to require 400 sq. inches of bright colored clothing during hunting season, why hasn't someone challenged it? If the washington state fish and game actually cared and believed that wearing bright colors saved lives, they'd convince any state agency to require bright colored clothing after a certain date. For that matter, if it was really all that important, the governor could mandate all agencies that control land use, to make it mandatory that all state employees, all visitors, all hunters will wear bright colors when in the field.I am not saying hunters could claim that.
I am saying non hunting public could possibly claim it violated their civil rights.
Post by: ghosthunter on April 14, 2024, 09:16:14 PM
And where in the constitution would the rule run afoul?And any rule would be ruled unconstitutional.Just an opinion; if it's really all about safety and hunters have to wear hunter orange or pink then why wouldn't anyone out n about in the hills during an open season where firearms are being used be required to wear orange or pink?The main reason there isn't such a regulation (hikers being required to wear orange) is that WDFW lacks the jurisdiction over hikers, the only exception would be WDFW could say anyone hiking on WDFW lands is required to wear orange. The DNR would have to adopt a similar reg for their lands, Forest Service for their lands, etc. The only way around this would be for the state legislature to actually adopt a law requiring the wearing of orange during hunting seasons, and that just isn't going to happen.
There are more than a dozen states that require those non-hunting companions of hunters to wear hunter orange. There are some states that require anyone using state wildlife area lands to wear hunter orange during hunting seasons. Just last month the Utah legislature passed a law granting authority to the Utah game department to enact rules to require the wearing of hunter orange by non-hunters such as hikers on state wildlife areas.
I bow to you Bigtex.
But part of this discussion was requiring non hunters on lands other than Wildlife Dept owned lands to wear orange or any required color. And as you state the DFW dose t have that authority. I believe it would be challenged by the public as a violation of their civil rights which is what I meant by constitutional even if the legislature were to pass it.
But hey that’s just my :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on April 14, 2024, 09:17:16 PM
In court when someone says something violates their constitutional or civil rights they actually have to show what civil/constitutional right is being violated. Simply not liking a law doesn't mean it is unconstitutional or would violate their civil rights. Civil rights in the US prohibit discrimination based on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, religion, and sex, so tell me, where does requiring the wearing of hunter orange by hikers on public lands violate their civil rights?being told what to wear seems a bit tyrannical?And what actual civil right would be violated?Oh please! Unconstitutional? Really? Where in the constitution does it say anything about only wearing subdued colors? Your honor, my rights have been violated because I had to wear orange after Labor day. If it's really unconstitutional to require 400 sq. inches of bright colored clothing during hunting season, why hasn't someone challenged it? If the washington state fish and game actually cared and believed that wearing bright colors saved lives, they'd convince any state agency to require bright colored clothing after a certain date. For that matter, if it was really all that important, the governor could mandate all agencies that control land use, to make it mandatory that all state employees, all visitors, all hunters will wear bright colors when in the field.I am not saying hunters could claim that.
I am saying non hunting public could possibly claim it violated their civil rights.
Post by: bigtex on April 14, 2024, 09:21:31 PM
:yeah:WACs for many of the changes in the pamphlet haven't been updated yet: seasons, 1x scopes, hunter orange, etc. I suspect it is a matter of timing and they wanted the regulations out as soon as possible.Looking up the WAC on the state webpage it still clearly states (exception 2) except bear or cougar. Until it changes there, I’m not going to follow a rule out of a pamphlet that is not completely stated.Alright someone has to help me out here because I clearly don’t understand. My comment was skipped right over. It clearly states under WAC 220-414-080 that this rule excludes bear and cougar hunters. Now just because the game department decided to put part of the code but not all of the code on the bear page of the pamphlet doesn’t mean that only what they state is correct. Was this a new adopted change that hasn’t been updated in the current WAC? I completely agree that seasons, limits and so on are justified by the big game regulations. However, a statement with a WAC number quoted means they are saying based on that code you are required to do so. Not what only the pamphlet states. Please get me inform me what I am missing.
@bigtex What is your take on this. I would think the WAC would supercede WDFW pamphlet states.
It takes the WA Code Reviser quite some time to actually update the online code, the codes take effect when passed by boards/commissions, not when they are put on the internet.
Post by: Itsintheblood on April 14, 2024, 09:28:24 PM
My take is the WAC definitely supersedes the pamphlet. Without question. Especially when the WAC is quoted as the code being followed. The explanation of the changes not being made yet is understandable. I have not looked into any of the other changes to verify. I work in the electrical field and we are governed first by the NEC and secondly by the WAC. The WAC supersedes the NEC. There is no doubt in my mind the WAC takes precedent in this situation. However if they have not been updated yet then I am premature. Is there a link to where/when the change was made. In a brief google search I was unable to find anything.WACs for many of the changes in the pamphlet haven't been updated yet: seasons, 1x scopes, hunter orange, etc. I suspect it is a matter of timing and they wanted the regulations out as soon as possible.Looking up the WAC on the state webpage it still clearly states (exception 2) except bear or cougar. Until it changes there, I’m not going to follow a rule out of a pamphlet that is not completely stated.Alright someone has to help me out here because I clearly don’t understand. My comment was skipped right over. It clearly states under WAC 220-414-080 that this rule excludes bear and cougar hunters. Now just because the game department decided to put part of the code but not all of the code on the bear page of the pamphlet doesn’t mean that only what they state is correct. Was this a new adopted change that hasn’t been updated in the current WAC? I completely agree that seasons, limits and so on are justified by the big game regulations. However, a statement with a WAC number quoted means they are saying based on that code you are required to do so. Not what only the pamphlet states. Please get me inform me what I am missing.
@bigtex What is your take on this. I would think the WAC would supercede WDFW pamphlet states.
Post by: ghosthunter on April 14, 2024, 09:49:58 PM
In court when someone says something violates their constitutional or civil rights they actually have to show what civil/constitutional right is being violated. Simply not liking a law doesn't mean it is unconstitutional or would violate their civil rights. Civil rights in the US prohibit discrimination based on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, religion, and sex, so tell me, where does requiring the wearing of hunter orange by hikers on public lands violate their civil rights?being told what to wear seems a bit tyrannical?And what actual civil right would be violated?Oh please! Unconstitutional? Really? Where in the constitution does it say anything about only wearing subdued colors? Your honor, my rights have been violated because I had to wear orange after Labor day. If it's really unconstitutional to require 400 sq. inches of bright colored clothing during hunting season, why hasn't someone challenged it? If the washington state fish and game actually cared and believed that wearing bright colors saved lives, they'd convince any state agency to require bright colored clothing after a certain date. For that matter, if it was really all that important, the governor could mandate all agencies that control land use, to make it mandatory that all state employees, all visitors, all hunters will wear bright colors when in the field.I am not saying hunters could claim that.
I am saying non hunting public could possibly claim it violated their civil rights.
https://www.paulksicinskilaw.com/blog/2015/01/can-the-government-tell-me-what-i-can-or-cannot-wear/
Post by: Scruffy on April 15, 2024, 02:12:18 AM
Post by: JakeLand on April 15, 2024, 05:15:54 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on April 15, 2024, 06:17:33 AM
I guess it's up to each person on how they see it, what if they made you wear a mask on your face? Some think that was ok, I didn't see it that way.In court when someone says something violates their constitutional or civil rights they actually have to show what civil/constitutional right is being violated. Simply not liking a law doesn't mean it is unconstitutional or would violate their civil rights. Civil rights in the US prohibit discrimination based on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, religion, and sex, so tell me, where does requiring the wearing of hunter orange by hikers on public lands violate their civil rights?being told what to wear seems a bit tyrannical?And what actual civil right would be violated?Oh please! Unconstitutional? Really? Where in the constitution does it say anything about only wearing subdued colors? Your honor, my rights have been violated because I had to wear orange after Labor day. If it's really unconstitutional to require 400 sq. inches of bright colored clothing during hunting season, why hasn't someone challenged it? If the washington state fish and game actually cared and believed that wearing bright colors saved lives, they'd convince any state agency to require bright colored clothing after a certain date. For that matter, if it was really all that important, the governor could mandate all agencies that control land use, to make it mandatory that all state employees, all visitors, all hunters will wear bright colors when in the field.I am not saying hunters could claim that.
I am saying non hunting public could possibly claim it violated their civil rights.
Post by: callturner on April 15, 2024, 07:47:30 AM
Post by: chukardogs on April 15, 2024, 10:14:02 AM
As long as there's hunters in the field that are there so intent on killing something that they'll shoot at a movement in the brush, take long distance shots without being absolutely positive of their target, then wearing blaze orange, hot pink or why not florescent lime green only makes sense. Also, just a fwiw, the state couldn't care any less about your rights. They don't enact rules and laws for you, the individual, they develop them for the masses and unfortunately these days, those masses include some really stupid people. People that don't think before they act. People that don't make sure their prescription glasses are up to date and they can actually see out of them. There's probably more reasons but the point is, you don't know who you're going to run into out there.
I hunt four miles behind a gate and over the last 30 years, I've seen maybe a dozen other hunters during my time in the hills. I'm sure I could get away with not wearing a blaze orange vest but why would I. I hope to have a few more years to hunt and if some *censored* with a gun decides I look like a deer or a bear, maybe if that deer or bear is wearing a blaze orange vest, they'll go about their day and I'll live to hunt tomorrow.
I do believe that if the state wants to make the case that wearing blaze orange is for safety, then allowing non-hunters in the field during hunting seasons without the same restrictions, makes it seem a bit disingenuous.
Post by: n_mathews13 on April 16, 2024, 12:31:37 PM
But if I was made to wear it I probably wouldn’t lol
Post by: BigCutty3 on April 16, 2024, 12:32:33 PM
Post by: dilleytech on April 16, 2024, 12:55:12 PM
Post by: 85yota on April 16, 2024, 05:29:32 PM
Post by: fishngamereaper on April 16, 2024, 05:42:05 PM
Wait so they are publishing rule changes that aren’t really the rules? 😂
Someone probably clicked on the wrong file with the first release
Not surprising...it's wdfw.
Lucky we didn't get someone's Costco shopping list. Or the list of people perma banned from drawing special tags :chuckle:
Post by: 85yota on April 16, 2024, 06:38:02 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on April 16, 2024, 07:19:33 PM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/newsroom/news-release/latest-big-game-hunting-regulations-and-special-hunt-applications-now-available
Excellent
Post by: hunter399 on April 16, 2024, 07:28:29 PM
Cause I won't buy a tag if they require it.
I burned my licence in the wood stove back in March before my license year was up.
Probably not buying one,so my opinion is mute.
I'd think there would be alot of guys not buying if they go with a hunter orange requirement.